Witcher 3 was promising unrealistic things (marrying handcrafted detail and quest design of TW2 with huge detailed open world? Impossible!) and I had unreasonable expectations for it and yet…it managed to handily exceed them.
So excuse me if I think their new game some 4-5 years in development by two to three times larger team just might be…really good :)
That said I fully expect some people to complain about “combat” or whatever like they do with Witcher 3. And I am sure the version on Xbox One will be very different from the RTX2080Ti version I will be playing.
Well, I had to preorder if I wanted the collector’s edition. Set me back some 300 bucks, but eh, it will be worth several times that in the future in case I am ever poor enough to have to sell it.
Why cautious? There is no reason to not be optimistic about this game. It’s going to be pretty decent, no two ways about it. Maybe even great.
Eh. The Witcher Digital Board Game and Gwent show that CDPR aren’t infallible.
Well there’s plenty of media and preview vids around, it’s not like any of it indicates the game will be a stinker.
I will assume this was meant tongue in cheeky breeky
One of the advantages of having a backlog longer than time itself is that if some new release doesn’t pass muster, I can just shrug and go back to the backlog.
I’ll be surprised if Cyberpunk isn’t worth the price of admission just for wandering around in its world, but we’ll see.
Touchy there, huh? I mean, the fact that some people were turned off by the combat system in no way invalidates the excellence of the game. And combat systems are one of the many things that are intensely personal when it comes to games, so snidely denigrating people who didn’t like the combat in the Witcher 3 is a bit much.We get that you are CDPR’s biggest fan, and that’s fine, but not everyone has to believe the sun rises and sets on them to still appreciate their skill and ability to make games.
Just do what I do, buy the game a year (or two) after release, all hype has evaporated by then!
Or buy the game at release and then backlog it for a few years. :D
KevinC
1938
Yeah, I didn’t care a lot for the Witcher combat. It was… fine. It didn’t detract from the game, except that I felt there was a little too much of it. It could have been better, though, especially at first when controlling Geralt was a little wonky. I seem to remember them adding an alternative scheme in one of their first few patches which helped me out some.
Still never finished that game. I keep meaning to but it bogs down for me. The story is excellent but I’m not much of a narrative gamer.
I’m a long standing complainer about Witcher 3 combat and controls.
After the Witcher 2, I thought the combat in Witcher 3 was magnificent.
Well, that’s hardly a high bar…but indeed, it was certainly better. I loved the world building in both 2 and 3, and the richness of the narrative at times. I just never got the mechanics to click with me. I keep trying, though!
There’s plenty of reason. It’s huge, it’s messy, and previous CD Projekt games had their share of flaws (yes, including Witcher 3). There’s potential? Oh God yes, lots of. But execution matters a lot, and one can imagine multiple reasons how or why things could go wrong.
The thing is, I appreciate games for what they are, not for what I expect them to be. I often appreciate their flaws as much as I appreciate their successes, as long as I feel they’re both part of a vision. That’s perhaps the thing about CDPR that makes me the most hopeful - for all the flaws in their previous games, they had a vision, and they followed it, warts and all. And it seems they’re doing it again, but this might be too big, and for that very reason it might crack more and in more places than their previous games. It’s entirely possible and even likely. Not that it would make it a bad game, no. But it could make it disjointed or flawed in a way that hurts its vision, and I would hate that.
Or maybe I tend to be cautious about everything. Perhaps I prefer to be pleasantly surprised when something is better than I expected, than to be disappointed when it doesn’t live up to my expectations.
And that right there pretty well sums it up.
Not touchy, it’s just that literally every discussion on reddit and elsewhere about TW3 or Cyberpunk devolves into people bickering about combat back and forth and it gets boring very quickly. I have no problem with people disliking it for that or any other reason, I just get bored reading about it over and over again.
There will be a bit of disappointment in some areas for some people, as you say people are having unrealistic expectations, but I think the developers will be ok with it, if in exchange the hype makes it sell 20 million copies.
No game (movie, book) will ever appeal to literally everyone. There are people who dislike Witcher 3. But when it also happens to win most GOTY awards ever, has highest user rating on both steam and metacritic and…QT3, does it really matter? The critical reception was extremely good on average and that was reflected by the sales numbers. It will be the same case with Cyberpunk, hype or no hype. I am willing to bet on that.
(not that the flawlessly executed marketing campaign does not help sales - of course it does)
Super detailed interview about combat mechanics
I like this in particular…
VG247: In the Night City Wire interview, they talked a little bit about the legendary weapons that are attached to specific quests. I got the impression that, for instance, depending on how you tackle a mission, you might get a different legendary at the end, compared to, say, if you go in all guns blazing versus stealth. Can you talk a little bit about how that works?
Kapala: We need to remember that it’s not like you finish a quest and you get a reward. We don’t want to have that artificial type of game loop in our game, necessarily. It’s more of a situation where you helped a certain NPC, like, let’s say you helped Meredith Stout, that we had in our demo. If you help her, and then you continue your relationship with her, you can get a certain legendary weapon from her, because she rewards you as a character. It’s not necessarily that the legendary weapon falls out of the sky, so to speak.
But that’s a part of your choices. Since we’re making an RPG, you will not know that, when you’re making those choices. It’s not like we’re informing the player, ‘Oh, are you certain that you want to help this character? Because that character has a special weapon for you.’ It’s a part of our RPG system that your actions have consequences, and some of the consequences are that, basically, you will not get rewarded by certain NPCs that you meet in the game. And it’s not the core of why you should help those NPCs, so the decision shouldn’t be made depending on which weapon you want to have. The decision should be, ‘I want to help that NPC because I like that NPC,’ or, ‘He speaks to my ideas in the game.’ And then you get rewarded by the NPC in a certain way.
And those legendary weapons also are very different, and they will actually give you a certain feeling connected to the NPC that you got it from. So, what I’m trying to say is, basically, they’re handcrafted for the specific quest. It’s not like you have a completely disconnected weapon that you can see the NPC never using. No. Some of the NPCs will actually take out a gun from their own holster, the gun that you saw them use five minutes ago. This gun has a specific visual to it that will not be repeated anywhere else in the game, and they will give you this gun. And that feels rewarding, because they actually give you something from their own person.
Cormac
1948
That reminds me of the legendary family heirlooms that you get in Witcher where they speak in awe of this AMAZING gift they are giving you and when you look at the stats, they are primitive in comparison to the weapon you already use… I kinda feel a bit bad when I immediately just get rid of it at the nearest junk merchant!
